Question: Should the city approve a soccer stadium development plan for the Qualcomm Stadium site without a public vote?

Phil Blair

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: We elect officials to make reasonable decisions that will benefit our city. This is not a billion dollar decision and if the development by a private firm makes sense to the council it should not be drawn out for years by public comment and vote.

Kelly Cunningham

Kelly Cunningham, National University System

YES: If a subsidized stadium does not go before voters for proper approval, it should be made absolutely clear that taxpayers have no conditional liability to pay for it. Bonds issued to build the stadium would be solely contingent upon rents collected from use of it. Any obligations for bondholders would be from stadium revenues and the stadium itself serve as the only collateral. With those stipulations, the city could approve of such a plan.

David Ely

David Ely, San Diego State University

He is not participating this week.

Gina Champion-Cain

Gina Champion-Cain, American National Investments

YES: Approval should come without a vote but not be limited to options that include a stadium. The current site has been woefully underutilized. It should be developed to, in real estate terms, provide the "highest and best" use. Standard process for vetting a project of this magnitude would be to issue a request for proposals to collect the best concepts from qualified development groups. We must elect competent officials, provide input and hold them accountable.

Alan Gin

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: Approving a soccer stadium would preclude the use of the Qualcomm site for other purposes, including possibly a new larger stadium. That could eliminate any possibility of the NFL ever returning to San Diego. Also, San Diego State would be affected, as their football teams sometimes draws more than the proposed 30,000-seat soccer stadium. It could be that a soccer stadium would be the best thing to do on the Qualcomm site, but that decision should be left to the voters.

James Hamilton

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

YES: This could help us make lemonade out of lemons, helping the city to pay off stadium debt and get out of big maintenance costs. Sometimes in business you have to move quickly to take advantage of special opportunities and this could be one of those times. If this generates positive cash flow for the city and preserves the option of return of an NFL franchise, the city should approve it without a vote.

Gary London Gensler Sports produced this artist's rendering of what a 30,000-seat Major League Soccer stadium might look like at the Qualcomm Stadium property. (Gensler Sports)

Gary London, London Group of Realty Advisors

NO: Now that we are unfettered from the Chargers, the driver should not be the stadium. It should be commerce and housing. Some land could be reserved for a future stadium, but we need to think much bigger. The site is too perfect: Its size, central location, ease of ingress and egress and river proximity all invite bold plans. We should start that process not with a public vote, but with request for proposals to be vetted by an informed committee and policy makers.

Norm Miller

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

YES: This proposal not only requires no new taxpayer subsidy but it eliminates ongoing costs, and will provide net new revenue. It is a win-win that we should approve. We could ask for competing proposals, but that could take years and slow down the process which will likely end up right back where we are now. Just keep (attorney) Cory Briggs far away as he may scheme some way to extract fees under the guise of protecting us.

Jamie Moraga

Jamie Moraga, IntelliSolutions

NO: As a CEO, I wouldn’t, along with my board of directors, make a decision worth hundreds of millions of dollars with a seven-day deadline and no input from our shareholders. Otherwise, failure to get such buy-in could result in a change of board members by the shareholders. The Qualcomm site is a public asset that deserves adequate public input. We don’t want to rush to build a 30,000-seat stadium and then regret it in 10 years. With a deal of this magnitude and complexity, the devil is always in the details.

Gail Naughton

Gail Naughton, Histogen

YES: The $1 billion redevelopment effort would help to vitalize the Mission Valley area with a new stadium for soccer and SDSU football as well as a river park, youth soccer team, restaurants, and residential and commercial rentals without using taxpayer dollars. Annual upkeep costs of $13 million and deferred maintenance would also be assumed. Mike Stone and his team have an excellent reputation of executing on a plan and they are willing to move quickly.

Austin Neudecker

Austin Neudecker, Rev

YES: As a soccer fan, I often question why we do not have an MLS team. San Diego is the perfect market given the demographics, weather and general local interest. More importantly to my vote, how will it be financed? Do we have a private financier? I tend not to be a fan of publicly funded stadiums. I would even consider a partial fan-funded model.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: San Diego must create a strategic plan first. The Chargers put us under pressure for a major public subsidy and it was bad policy and rightfully was soundly defeated. The soccer stadium might be a great fit — but we as citizens have a right to a proper review of alternatives by our elected officials. Let's do this right and create the highest and best use of the Qualcomm Stadium site.

Lynn Reaser

Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University

NO: Since the public was so involved with the Chargers issue, San Diego voters might question their exclusion from the story’s sequel. A thorough public debate on alternative uses, ranging from sports to education to housing, would be appropriate. Uncertainties regarding Mexico in light of changes in immigration and other policies now raise new questions since Mexican soccer support and participation might be critical to the venue’s success. The disposition of this valuable property needs to be fully vetted.

John Sarkisian

John Sarkisian, SKLZ

He’s not participating this week.

Dan Seiver

Dan Seiver, Reilly Financial Advisors

He is not participating this week.

Chris Van Gorder

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: The City Council should approve the proposal if it makes sense for the city. If it doesn’t, then the council shouldn’t approve it. That’s the crux of the matter, not whether the public should vote on it. The public is not required to vote on every real estate transaction the city makes, so unless required by law, the city should not take on the expense of a public vote. Let's let our elected officials make the decision and hold them accountable for it.